I saw this question come up at agotcards.org, and it's got me scratching my head. What happens when Direct Assault meets Red Vengeance? My best guess is that Direct Assault is a replacement effect, replacing the normal claim effect with a different one. Red Vengeance cancels this new claim effect, and has an opponent satisfy the normal claim instead. How off am I?

Direct Assault

[stark/Baratheon Event]
House Stark or House Baratheon only.
Challenges: Choose 1 character with a and a icon that is attacking alone. For the duration of the challenges, that character gets +2 STR. If you win the challenge, instead of the normal claim effects, choose a non-unique location controlled by the losing opponent. Take control of that location.

See, "Choose a non-unique location controlled by the losing opponent", this is what happened instead of "normal claim effect". And "take control" is just another thing which has nothing to do with the claim effect, since it is a "." there, not a ",", right?

So I think you can steal the location from the defender even after red vengeance.

I don't think anything changes. I think you still take the location, since RV isn't causing that player to not loose the challenge, it's just moving the claim satisfaction. DA is saying take control of the losing players location instead of the normal claim effect. I don't find any conflict between what DA would resolve and the game state before or after RV. I can still use Die By The Sword after you hit me with RV, or Price of War, although thats a little different because the control swap of a location from DA is a lasting effects resolution, not a response.

Worst case scenario is that it ends up like the power challenge, you steal a location from yourself with no net change. But I am tempted to say you still get the location because its looking at who won and who lost, and instead of normal claim your taking a location from the loser, not the person who is going to satisfy claim.

Then again, ive been very wrong before.

Whichever opponent is chosen for the effects of Red Vengeance is the player the winner of the challenge must take a non-unique location from.

So if you used Direct Assault in Joust, won the challenge, and your opponent played Red Vengeance, you'd simply choose and take control of a non-unique location you already control.

The only alternative outcome I can think of is that canceling the claim effect would revert the claim back to it's "original" effect; however, I don't think that's the case.

FATMOUSE said:

Red Vengeance does not cancel the claim replacement from Direct Assault. So it is still active, valid, applicable and still defining the "claim effect" for the challenge. So when Red Vengeance says that someone else needs to settle the "claim" for that challenge, the "replaced claim" will be utilized.

However, Red Vengeance does not change who won or lost the challenge. All it does is change the identity of the player that counts as the "losing opponent" for the purposes of settling the claim effect. So since the Direct Assault claim effect is that the winner ("you") of the challenge takes control of a location from the "losing opponent," he'll choose one of his own locations and...take control of it. Essentially, it's the same deal as when you use Red Vengeance during a power challenge. The winning attacker picks up 2 power from his own House and puts it...on his own House. (Different from how Doran Martell works.)

And yes, in a Melee game, the person playing Red Vengeance can choose someone other than the attacker as the new "losing opponent."

ktom said:

I am not agree with your opinion.

If you win the challenge, instead of the normal claim effects, choose a non-unique location controlled by the losing opponent.

So I think the claim effects now is "choose a non-unique location controlled by the losing opponent"... Nothing to do with the take control part.

I think Claim effect is Claim effect, it will not change itself to a non-digit.

if you play Direct Assault, the claim effect is just be Zero, so Red Vengeance cancel and transfer nothing actually.

Uncle Joker said:

I'm not sure what you mean. "Take control of that location" is part of the whole effect, just like on The Red Wedding: "The other claims 2 power".

Uncle Joker said:

Again not sure what you mean, but claim value and claim effect are two different things.

If you translate claim effects for simple words, it will be something like this:

military claim effect - loser kills his character

intrigue claim effect - loser discards card

power claim effect - loser moves power to the attacker’s House card (important detail)

War of Five Kings claim effect - loser selects next plot card at random

Direct Assault claim effect - loser gives away his location to the attacker

So, Red vengeance makes you suffer as if you would be the loser. You have to give location to yourself.

Uncle Joker said:

Your argument is that "choose a non-unique location controlled by the losing opponent" is the new claim for the challenge and that taking control is not part of the claim effect.

But if it's not part of the claim effect, what is it?

That's where the argument falls apart. For one thing, "choose a non-unique location controlled by the losing opponent" is NOT an effect. It is a target restriction without an effect. I mean, would you ever see an event or a character ability that simply said "choose a location controlled by your opponent"? What would you do with that? "Hey, I choose your location." "And what?" "Nothing I just choose it. TAKE THAT!" Choosing the location cannot be an effect because there isn't any result to resolve. The resolution of the effect is to take control of the chosen (aka, "targeted") location. So, it comes down to the structure of effects in this game; you cannot separate the target from the effect.

So just because the "choose" and the "take control" are in different sentences does not, in this case, make them independent effects because one acts as the target requirements for the other. There is no functional difference, in game terms, between "Choose a non-unique location controlled by the losing opponent. Take control of that location." and "Choose and take control of a non-unique location controlled by the losing opponent."

But putting Red Vengeance back into it, if "Take control of that location" is not part of the claim, what is it? It could only be some passive effect that takes place after the claim itself ("choosing" the location) takes place. If it's not part of the execution of claim, Red Vengeance wouldn't cancel it, right? And if it wasn't canceled, it would still be there to resolve after claim was settled. So even under your "only the choice is part of the claim" argument, Red Vengeance would make the winner of the challenge (the guy who played Direct Assault) choose a location controlled by someone else (whichever opponent the person playing Red Vengeance picks). The "claim" resolves and the winner of the challenge "chooses" a location. When you get to the passive step, where the "not part of claim" effect to take control of the chosen location takes place, control is transferred.

So even under your argument that "only the choice of a location is part of the claim," control of the chosen location would still transfer (to the same person who already controlled it in the case of a Joust game). The results of the earlier answer are thus the same, even under your (incorrect, sorry) assumption that the targeting a location - for nothing - is all the claim under Direct Assault.

ktom said:

Thank you for Ktom and Rogue30.

Actually, what I have expressed is two different ideas of mine.

One is "take the location is not a part of claim effect", and this one is perfectly answered by both of you. I am ok with your answer.

And the other idea is as below,

"I think Claim effect is Claim effect, it will not change itself to a non-digit. If you play Direct Assault, the claim effect is just be Zero, so Red Vengeance cancel and transfer nothing actually."

How do you think?

Uncle Joker said:

Direct Assault is a claim replacement effect. If the character attacking alone wins, the claim effect is changed from whatever it normally is (kill a character, discard a card, or steal a power) to "choose a location; take control of it." The replacement is a constant effect, activated and applicable when the event is played until the end of the challenge.

So, when Red Vengeance cancels the claim effect, it interrupts and cancels the resolution of that "choose a location; take control of it" effect that has redefined the proper way to resolve the claim for this challenge. Red Vengeance then says that another player is chosen to satisfy the claim of THAT challenge, as if they had lost as a defender. At this point, you have 2 choices:

1. All of the conditions around the (still active and applicable) effect from Direct Assault are true - the person who played Direct Assault still won the challenge - so the claim replacement is still true for THAT challenge (as reference on Red Vengeance says). So the claim replacement is still there and in order to follow the instructions on Red Vengeance and satisfy the claim of "that" challenge, you have to go through the "choose a location; take control of it" effect.
2. If, on the other hand, you are still convinced that canceling the claim effect also cancels the applicability of Direct Assault to modifying the way that claim effect resolves, satisfying claim for "that" challenge would be whatever the challenge type's typical claim effect is.

So you cant have it both ways. You cannot say that the replacement effect replaces the claim for "that" challenge without being transferrable, but when canceled, continues to replace the "usual" claim so that the claim effect is "Zero." Your choice is either "modified claim" or "usual claim" in this scenario, not "no claim effect at all."

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "it will not change itself to a non-digit." Claim effects have no "digit" value of their own in any way. Claim effects are just instructions for how to resolve an effect that you earn by winning a challenge as an attacker. Under most circumstances, those instructions come from the rules. With Direct Assault, the instructions come from a card. The "digit" value in "normal claim" is actually a number on your plot card that is referenced in the instructions for resolving the effect. So there was no digit in the claim effect to "change" in the first place. The question here is which set of instructions to follow. It has nothing to do with claim number, claim value, or "non-digit."

Thank you, it is clear now.